Carlos Alonzo and Casimira vs. IAC and Tecla Padua (G.R. No.

72873, May 28, 1987)

NATURE: We are a court of law and a court of justice.
FACTS: Five siblings inherited in equal pro indiviso shares a parcel of registered land. On March 15, 1963, Celestino Padua transferred his undivided share to the Alonzos for P550.00 by
way of absolute sale. A year later, on April 22, 1964, Eustaquia Padua sold her own share to the same vendees by pacto de retro sale for P 440.00. By virtue of which, the Alonzos occupied
2/5th of the lot portion sold to them and fenced it. In 1975, with their consent, their son Eduardo Alonzo and his wife built a semi-concrete house on a part of the enclosed area.
On Feb. 25, 1976, Mariano Padua, one of co-heirs, sought to redeem the area sold to spouses Alonzo, but complaint was dismissed because he was an American citizen. On May
27, 1977, Tecla Padua, another coheir, invoked the same right of redemption.
RTC dismissed her complaint on the ground that the right had lapsed, not having been exercised within 30 days from notice of the sales in 1963 and 1964. And although there was no
written notice, actual knowledge of the sales by the coheirs satisfied the requirement of the law:
Art. 1088. Should any of the heirs sell his hereditary rights to a stranger before the partition, any or all of the coheirs may be subrogated to the rights of the purchaser by
reimbursing him for the price of the sale, provided they do so within the period of one month from the time they were notified in writing of the sale by the vendor.
Art. 1623. The right of legal pre-emption or redemption shall not be exercised except within 30 days from the notice in writing by the prospective vendor, or by the vendors, as the
case may be. The deed of sale shall not be recorded in the Registry of Property unless accompanied by an affidavit of the vendor that he has given written notice thereof to all possible
redemptioners. The right of redemption of co-owners excludes that of the adjoining owners.
The other coheirs, including Tecla Padua, lived on the same lot including the portions sold to spouses Alonzo. Eustaquia herself who sold her portion thru pacto de retro sale was
staying in the same house with her sister Tecla, who later claimed redemption. And spouses Alonzo and the Paduas were close friends and neighbours whose children went to school
together.
ISSUE: Is the interpretation and application of the laws cited correct?
HELD: YES. The interpretation and application of the law is correct. We test a law by its results; and likewise, by its purposes. It is a cardinal rule that in seeking the meaning of the law,
the first concern of the judge should be to discover in its provisions the intent of the lawmaker. The law should never be interpreted in such a way as to cause injustice as this is never within
the legislative intent. We presume the good motives of the legislature is to render justice. Thus, we interpret and apply the law not independently of but in consonance with justice. Law and
justice are inseparable, and we must keep them so. To be sure, there are some laws that, while generally valid, may seem arbitrary when applied in a particular case because of its peculiar
circumstances. In such situation, we are not bound, because only of our nature and functions, to apply them just the same, in slavish obedience to their language. What we do instead is find
a balance between the word and the will, that justice may be done even as the law is observed.
We defer not to the letter that killeth but to the spirit that vivifieth to give effect to the lawmakers will. The spirit, rather than the letter of the statute, determines its construction,
hence, a statute must be read according to its spirit or intent. A thing which is within the intent of the lawmaker is as much within the statue as if within the letter, and a thing which is within
the letter of the statute is not within the statue unless within the intent of the lawmakers.
We cannot accept the private respondents pretense that they were unaware of the sales made by their brother and sister in 1963 and 1964. By requiring written proof of such
notice, we would be closing our eyes to the obvious truth in favour of their palpably false claim of ignorance, thus exalting the letter of the law over its purpose. The purpose is clearto
make sure that the redemptioners are duly notified. We are satisfied that in this case, the other brothers and sisters were actually informed, although not in writing, of the sales made in 1963
and 1964, and that such was sufficient.
It was a natural thing for the coheirs to wonder why the spouses Alonzo, who were not among them, should enclose a portion of the inherited lot and build thereon a house of
strong materials, which is an act of ownership. Yet, none of the coheirs saw fit to object or inquire to ascertain the facts, which were readily available. It took all of 13 years before one of
them chose to claim the right of redemption, but then it was already too late. Thus, when the facts warrants, we interpret the law in a way that will render justice, presuming that it was the
intention of the lawmaker, to begin with, that the law be dispensed with justice.